linux-kernel - Re: Improve spinlock performance by moving work to one core

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <563CE5A6.8080409@hpe.com>
Date:	Fri, 06 Nov 2015 12:38:46 -0500
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
To:	Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@...il.com>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ling <ling.ml@...baba-inc.com>
Subject: Re: Improve spinlock performance by moving work to one core

On 11/05/2015 11:28 PM, Ling Ma wrote:
> Longman
>
> Thanks for your suggestion.
> We will look for real scenario to test, and could you please introduce
> some benchmarks on spinlock ?
>
> Regards
> Ling
>
>

The kernel has been well optimized for most common workloads that 
spinlock contention is usually not a performance bottleneck. There are 
still corner cases where there is heavy spinlock contention.

I used a spinlock loop microbenchmark like what you are doing as well as 
AIM7 for application level testing.

Cheers,
Longman


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/